On 07/23/2018 10:01 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:10PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
In preparation to de-duplicate a section of code where we deduce the
num_devices, use warn instead of bug.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 7f4973fc2b52..0f4c512aa6b4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3726,7 +3726,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices;
btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(&fs_info->dev_replace);
if (btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(&fs_info->dev_replace)) {
- BUG_ON(num_devices < 1);
+ WARN_ON(num_devices < 1);
I wonder if there any valid cases when there are 0 devices when balance
is started, ie. before num_devices gets decremented.
num_devices counts the in-memory devices of a fsid.
On a mounted FS num_devices > 0 always.
The WARN_ON is either redundant or should be turned to a proper sanity
check.
Yes is redundant. I suggest to delete it.
Thanks, Anand
num_devices--;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
